Re: PJ & the ID concept

Ken Sewell (ksewell@airmail.net)
Thu, 23 Dec 1999 18:17:39 -0600

I can't determine anyone's motives if they do not tell me. However, based
on several conversations with people (not all scientists) I do know that
their concern about evolution dates back to the claims that evolution does
not need God the creator. You and I know this is not the case, however, the
newspapers and popular media don't seem to recognize the need for God in
evolution. We also know how hard it is to put God into any scientific
article. Personnally, I don't think it is necessary to try.

What ASA may need to do is to let Christians know that many scientists who
think evolution is scientifically valid also believe that God is involved
and that evolution is a tool for creation. Now the question is, how? These
people probably don't read the same journals.

At 12:45 PM 12/23/1999 -0700, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Allen Harvey wrote:
>
>"Perhaps, but it is at least as key to recognize *why* they want to give
>evolution this scrutiny. Underlying most of the movement is the
>assumption that evolution is incompatible with theism (which *may* be
>based on their reading of Scripture but may spring from "God of the Gaps"
>theology or other philosophical considerations), which necessitates a
>defensive effort to find holes in evolutionary theory. So even if PJ
>leaves the Bible out of it, he can't (nor does he really try to) pretend
>his motivations are not primarily religious."
>
>Allen -- you are of the opinion (as are a lot of others here) that
>"understanding the motives of a person's arguments, in this case PJ, are
>of substantial importance in properly evaluating the arguments
>themselves.
>
>I don't hold to that position. I could care less WHY PJ (& Dembski &
>Nelson et al) propose their ideas. Nor do I much care what use may be
>made of those ideas in matters external.
>
>BTW -- I have not read PJ claiming that his motives are not primarily
>religious. Has anyone?
>
>Allen goes on,
>
>"After all, you don't see such large and determined efforts to analyze
>relativity or plate tectonics "on its own merits", because these theories
>don't threaten anybody's faith. If evolution were not perceived as a
>threat to theism, at least 90% of the ID movement (and 99% of the
>attention it gets within the Church) would vanish, with ID getting as
>little attention as PJ's opposition to scientific orthodoxy on HIV/AIDS."
>
>Perhaps so. But how much "attention" it gets seems to also be a
>sub-issue.
>
>"By the way, I'm not opposed to such scrutiny of evolutionary theory, but
>I despise the frequently underlying implication that, if evolution stands
>up under the scrutiny, atheism will have won the day."
>
>Of course you & I pretty much agree here, though I would not use the word
>"despise."
>
>Merry Christmas
>
> Burgy
>
>
Ken Sewell
Code Bravery: A new techno-thriller
http://www.zyworld.com/Ken_Sewell/Home.htm